No question that Christians feel the world will end with the final battle being that much of the world will rise up and try to blow Israel off the map. What are your thoughts and can you deny that the rest of the Middle East (or at least the Muslim nations) hate Israel? Isn't it plausible then, that the Bible may be correct in predicting this catastrophe?

Have you actually read the Book of Revelation?

1) Read the early chapters. Notice how the book is addressed to several churches in what is now Turkey. Those were churches that existed in the time of John of Patmos. Then make a note of how the events of prophecy were supposed to be "soon" to come to pass. Is 2000+ years "soon" in any sense that would have been meaningful to the congregations of those churches?

2) Read the description of the Battle of Armageddon. Notice anything odd? Like, the mention of massed horse cavalry on both sides? How about the mention of kings of the Earth gathered to fight with Jesus? What do you think are the odds of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, etc. assembling units of horse cavalry and shipping them over to the Middle East to attack Israel in coordination with horse cavalry from other nations (the European Union, Russia, China, Thailand, etc.)?

"But it's all symbolic and esoteric and stuff! You can't take it literally!"

OK, sure. Then what makes you think it has anything to do with modern times, instead of being a symbolic description of the Jewish War of 66-70 C.E., or maybe an esoteric allegory of the conflict between tyrannical human authority (e.g the Roman Empire) and the Christian spiritual community?

Very good post, and yes- Revelation is mostly symbolic. It was a vision John had, and could not accurately describe what he was seeing. For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter? After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

Very good post, and yes- Revelation is mostly symbolic. It was a vision John had, and could not accurately describe what he was seeing. For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter? After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

Last time I checked, assault helicopters were somewhat bigger than locusts.....

So what you are saying is that the written record we have of John's Revelation cannot be relied upon to give an accurate picture of what that Revelation actually was? That whatever he wrote down was filtered through the medium of his culture and beliefs?

If that is the case, then by what token can you assert that anything we have written down in Revelation can be relied upon? Example: he writes of the end of the world. We are taking that to mean "the earth". But given that he was a product of his time, with knowledge of a VERY small part of the globe, is it not likely that his "world" meant to him just the few hundred square miles of Middle East he lived in?

Basically, if you are saying "when he writes this, he could mean that", by what token can you assume that anything he writes really IS what he meant? Or what he saw?

Very good post, and yes- Revelation is mostly symbolic. It was a vision John had, and could not accurately describe what he was seeing. For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter?

No, he could not. He probably meant " locusts and scorpions"

Quote

After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

So, you're suggesting that God sent John a vision that God knew John would not understand? What would be the point of this?. Why didn't John then draw a helicopter? Galileo drew helicopters.

Why does the Book of Revelations have to have a meaning? Isn't it far more likely that it is the ramblings of a mad man? Why are we trying to understand a schizophrenic? Are there any other schizophrenics that you believe are "revealing" things?

Why must the Book of Revelations apply to the early part of the 21st century? Don't you realise that each period throughout history could serve for what John ranted on about?

Do you remember when your deity said, "1Th:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.2Pe:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."?

Your deity didn't say that he would be giving clues. He didn't say, "Well, not actually like a thief in the night, because I will be sending some nutter to give you an incomprehensible message that, nevertheless will contain a few hints!"

Look, holy buckets, the world has been filled with Chicken Littles worried about the sky falling on their head. You would have thought that, by now, we would have become used to failed prophecies.

But more to the point, you are expecting me to believe that 7-headed dragons will suddenly appear, magicked out of nothing, fully formed and out of nowhere? Now, how likely is that?

Here is Graybeard's prophecy, "Don't worry, the world is not going to end."

Very good post, and yes- Revelation is mostly symbolic. It was a vision John had, and could not accurately describe what he was seeing. For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter? After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

Last time I checked, assault helicopters were somewhat bigger than locusts.....

So what you are saying is that the written record we have of John's Revelation cannot be relied upon to give an accurate picture of what that Revelation actually was? That whatever he wrote down was filtered through the medium of his culture and beliefs?

If that is the case, then by what token can you assert that anything we have written down in Revelation can be relied upon? Example: he writes of the end of the world. We are taking that to mean "the earth". But given that he was a product of his time, with knowledge of a VERY small part of the globe, is it not likely that his "world" meant to him just the few hundred square miles of Middle East he lived in?

Basically, if you are saying "when he writes this, he could mean that", by what token can you assume that anything he writes really IS what he meant? Or what he saw?

John wrote down what he saw in a vision/dream. He used the nomenclature he was familiar with. Atheists always try to play with words.... I talked to one guy who said the Bible is false because a bat is not a bird. Well, Moses called it a bird because it was not until the 1700's that scientists classified bats as mammals. Moses just wrote what he knew. John did the same. I do not know how easier I can explain this.

Very good post, and yes- Revelation is mostly symbolic. It was a vision John had, and could not accurately describe what he was seeing. For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter?

No, he could not. He probably meant " locusts and scorpions"

Quote

After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

So, you're suggesting that God sent John a vision that God knew John would not understand? What would be the point of this?. Why didn't John then draw a helicopter? Galileo drew helicopters.

Why does the Book of Revelations have to have a meaning? Isn't it far more likely that it is the ramblings of a mad man? Why are we trying to understand a schizophrenic? Are there any other schizophrenics that you believe are "revealing" things?

Why must the Book of Revelations apply to the early part of the 21st century? Don't you realise that each period throughout history could serve for what John ranted on about?

Do you remember when your deity said, "1Th:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.2Pe:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."?

Your deity didn't say that he would be giving clues. He didn't say, "Well, not actually like a thief in the night, because I will be sending some nutter to give you an incomprehensible message that, nevertheless will contain a few hints!"

Look, holy buckets, the world has been filled with Chicken Littles worried about the sky falling on their head. You would have thought that, by now, we would have become used to failed prophecies.

But more to the point, you are expecting me to believe that 7-headed dragons will suddenly appear, magicked out of nothing, fully formed and out of nowhere? Now, how likely is that?

Here is Graybeard's prophecy, "Don't worry, the world is not going to end."

Speaking of the rantings of a mad man, I can make little sense of your post. Here is one example, you write: "Why must the Book of Revelations apply to the early part of the 21st century? Don't you realise that each period throughout history could serve for what John ranted on about?"

I don't believe the final battle has happened in"each period throughout history."

I don't know who chicken little is and I don't expect a 7 headed dragon to come knocking at my door any time soon.

If you have any intelligent questions, I will be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

Because the words matter. In fact the words matter wore than anything else except the sentiment behind them. If the words are arranged to form an incoherent message, why should people believe them? The words (the text itself) are all that exist to tell the story of christianity, or any other religion for that matter. One would quite reasonably expect, given how important the message is supposed to be, that god would ensure that the words were actually correct. Since that's obviously not the case, we ask why anyone would believe any of what the text says, given the many obvious errors.

Quote

I talked to one guy who said the Bible is false because a bat is not a bird. Well, Moses called it a bird because it was not until the 1700's that scientists classified bats as mammals. Moses just wrote what he knew. John did the same. I do not know how easier I can explain this.

It's not that we don't understand the point you are trying to make. The point you are trying to make is very familiar to most, if not all, of us. Again, if the words in the text are supposed to be the guide to what god expects of human worshipers, one would quite reasonably expect them to be accurate. As in: not subject to interpretation. As in: very clear and explicit. As in: the instruction manual for life seems a pretty important document to proofread before sending it out into the world so people know what god expects of them.

God is all powerful, per every christian I've ever known (myself among them back in the old days). If the text is THE path to salvation, it should be easy to understand and maybe include a few diagrams (one on the structure of the human body would have been awfully handy for medical reason, eh?). Instead of that, this all powerful God allowed us to end up with a book of gibberish that people are willing to kill over.

Speaking of the rantings of a mad man, I can make little sense of your post. Here is one example, you write: "Why must the Book of Revelations apply to the early part of the 21st century? Don't you realise that each period throughout history could serve for what John ranted on about?"

I don't believe the final battle has happened in"each period throughout history."

I don't know who chicken little is and I don't expect a 7 headed dragon to come knocking at my door any time soon.

If you have any intelligent questions, I will be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

I don't know about intelligent questions but I think I would like to see to helpful answers to this one.

Now, read what you call prophecies in the John's Apocalypse. Does the word 'soon' appear very much next to them? Pretty much anything in the New Testament that refers to Christ's second coming and the 'end of the world' style stuff comes with 'soon, 'very soon' or something like that. Paul even tells people not to marry as there isn't time left before the second coming. Its all about rushing to be ready for when Jesus comes back.

To look back now, nearly 2,000 years later and to see that all the talk of soon and very soon didn't happen and, in fact, nothing happened at all. We look around and we see everything the same and nothing much changed. There have been wars after wars, destruction after destruction. Why do you still think that something that was going to happen soon in the 1st century will happen now, in the 21st century? Why can't you see it for what it is - failed idea that never happened?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Because the words matter. In fact the words matter wore than anything else except the sentiment behind them. If the words are arranged to form an incoherent message, why should people believe them? The words (the text itself) are all that exist to tell the story of christianity, or any other religion for that matter. One would quite reasonably expect, given how important the message is supposed to be, that god would ensure that the words were actually correct. Since that's obviously not the case, we ask why anyone would believe any of what the text says, given the many obvious errors.

Quote

I talked to one guy who said the Bible is false because a bat is not a bird. Well, Moses called it a bird because it was not until the 1700's that scientists classified bats as mammals. Moses just wrote what he knew. John did the same. I do not know how easier I can explain this.

It's not that we don't understand the point you are trying to make. The point you are trying to make is very familiar to most, if not all, of us. Again, if the words in the text are supposed to be the guide to what god expects of human worshipers, one would quite reasonably expect them to be accurate. As in: not subject to interpretation. As in: very clear and explicit. As in: the instruction manual for life seems a pretty important document to proofread before sending it out into the world so people know what god expects of them.

God is all powerful, per every christian I've ever known (myself among them back in the old days). If the text is THE path to salvation, it should be easy to understand and maybe include a few diagrams (one on the structure of the human body would have been awfully handy for medical reason, eh?). Instead of that, this all powerful God allowed us to end up with a book of gibberish that people are willing to kill over.

A child could have done better.

Jag, how could Moses have classified a bat as a mammal? The classification of species did not come until at least 2000 years later. I do not even believe the word "mammal" existed at the time of Moses. Another word that did not exist back then was homosexual. I have heard many try to defend homosexuality, claiming the word is not in the Bible. The Bible CLEARLY denounces homosexuality, yet- the word "homosexual" was not used until much later. Also, The path to salvation is very clear and easy- you may think it is "gibberish" but that is your problem and not mine.

Jag, how could Moses have classified a bat as a mammal? The classification of species did not come until at least 2000 years later. I do not even believe the word "mammal" existed at the time of Moses. Another word that did not exist back then was homosexual. I have heard many try to defend homosexuality, claiming the word is not in the Bible. The Bible CLEARLY denounces homosexuality, yet- the word "homosexual" was not used until much later. Also, The path to salvation is very clear and easy- you may think it is "gibberish" but that is your problem and not mine.

If the path to salvation was clear and easy, everyone would be saved. But even the people who believe in the same god and the same book have diverse explanations for what salvation entails. The major religions are very similar in this respect, that they have many adherents but those adherents are divided into many different groups based on different beliefs and interpretations. Some of those groups even believe that other groups are wrong enough to risk eternal damnation. How do you know that you're not in one of the groups whose beliefs are just wrong enough to damn you?

Jag, how could Moses have classified a bat as a mammal? The classification of species did not come until at least 2000 years later. I do not even believe the word "mammal" existed at the time of Moses.

I'm not talking about why Moses got it wrong, I'm asking why GOD didn't get it right. That's a reasonable question as I've already explained, so I would rather you answer that than divert to argue against what I didn't say.

Quote

Another word that did not exist back then was homosexual. I have heard many try to defend homosexuality, claiming the word is not in the Bible. The Bible CLEARLY denounces homosexuality, yet- the word "homosexual" was not used until much later.

FAR more clearly, it denounces wearing mixed fiber clothing and eating shellfish. Read Leviticus and get back to me with an explanation of why THAT set of instructions is not important enough to follow but the ones you think matter are. Then we can move on to Isaiah and discuss the massive amounts of incoherent nonsensical babbling in that book as well.

Quote

Also, The path to salvation is very clear and easy- you may think it is "gibberish" but that is your problem and not mine.

Not my problem at all. There is no "path to salvation" and your insistence that there is, much less that it's very clear and easy, is also gibberish. If it's so blatantly obvious, please share it with me, as I can't seem to find it amongst all the instructions to avoid swine flesh and such.

John wrote down what he saw in a vision/dream. He used the nomenclature he was familiar with.

Big mistake from god, if you want to document critical visions, use someone who has better understanding of the stuff that may be encountered in these visions. For example, you dont send a fashion reporter to give commentary on a boxing match.

Not true, though there are some of us who likes anagrams, Bookworm and Scrabble, mostly we ask for clarification. Apologists, on the other hand, use words like "symbolic", "allegory" etc when cornered.

I talked to one guy who said the Bible is false because a bat is not a bird. Well, Moses called it a bird because it was not until the 1700's that scientists classified bats as mammals.

Aaahhh... the popular response for "Bible is scientific, inerrant". I doubt if he would have said that bible is false because of the bat/bird issue, he must have said that it should not be used as a scientific text. Its lucky that Moses was not around when JC walked on water, he may have thought JC was a lizard. You should send the right people for the job, give them the right training[1]

And we just established the limits of their knowledge. Usually a creation is only as smart as the creator, the bible is no exception. The book that you worship is just the best they could do. It may have been the limits of "scientific knowledge" in the first half of the first millennia. Today, with almost everything written in the book proven to be false, why do people still cling to it?

...How could Moses have classified a bat as a mammal? The classification of species did not come until at least 2000 years later.

However, mice did exist in the time of Moses. If you have access to a dead bird and a dead bat, the bat is quite obviously a flying rodent. Any god worthy of the name would have been able to use its foreknowledge of scientific advancement (and subsequent embarrassment as science roared past religion in the passing lane) by simply adding "Don't eat flying mice, either."

Errors like these make it patently obvious that your god is a human creation that only knows as much as humans happen to know at any given moment.

And "salvation," IMNSHO, is merely those same humans wishing for eternal life. I'm pretty sure the Bible's claims of such a thing are just as bogus as the "bat=bird" nonsense, or the Noachide flood, or Jesus coming back from the dead.

Yes, and what you say about the bible applies to all the holy books. The Qur'an only knows what was know at the time and even the book of Mormon is no better. It really makes one think what is going on when there is nothing at all in any way in advance of the time of writing.

I guess this is a case of men (yes men in those days) writing this stuff up to control the growing population. The Hebrews probably picked most of it up in Babylon and adapted it.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Once again, I do not know how simple I can make this. Moses called a bat a bird because a bat flies. It has wings. It looks like a bird. The Hebrew term Moses used refers to something that has wings. Scientists LATER classified a bat as a mammal, a term that DID NOT exist when Moses wrote Leviticus. Moses could NOT have used the term "mammal" BECAUSE the word DID NOT exist. In Revelation, John was describing things AS BEST he knew how. He OBVIOUSLY could NOT use a term like NUCLEAR WARFARE because that term HAD NOT been invented yet.I am sorry if you cannot understand this.....To answer the posts about the events in Revelation coming "soon". They have! Revelation is a work in progress, it is NOT prophesied to happen all at once. The Churches have gone through periods of change- just like John said they would, ect....

For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter? After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

Last time I checked, assault helicopters were somewhat bigger than locusts.....

John wrote down what he saw in a vision/dream. He used the nomenclature he was familiar with. Atheists always try to play with words.... I talked to one guy who said the Bible is false because a bat is not a bird. Well, Moses called it a bird because it was not until the 1700's that scientists classified bats as mammals.

Moses called a bat a bird because a bat flies. It has wings. It looks like a bird. The Hebrew term Moses used refers to something that has wings. Scientists LATER classified a bat as a mammal, a term that DID NOT exist when Moses wrote Leviticus. Moses could NOT have used the term "mammal" BECAUSE the word DID NOT exist. In Revelation, John was describing things AS BEST he knew how. He OBVIOUSLY could NOT use a term like NUCLEAR WARFARE because that term HAD NOT been invented yet.

Sure: bats aren't birds - but they were small things with wings, so fair dos.

But a locust and a scorpion are small creatures of flesh, a couple inches long. An assault helicopter is a huge thing made of metal, impossibly fast, that will shoot tiny pieces of metal out that kill people. To try to claim that "bird=bat" is an error of the same class as "locust=assault helicopter" is a touch disinenuous.

Similarly, I'm not going to catigate John for not saying "nuclear war" when he would not have known the term. But did he say "there was a huge noise, and a light that lit up the sky. A cloud of dust rose, in the shape of a mushroom."? No. He talked about armies of CAVALRY, something that we have not seem on the battlefield for a hundred years, and likely will never see again. Nor is there anything I can think of that he could mistake for "man on a horse" - at least without not including the word "metal", if we are going to proclaim motorised infantry of some kind.

In short, when he reported what he saw, he specifically described things that were around in his time, as if those were the things he actually saw. He did NOT see things that we would recognise as implements of modern warfare, and attempt to describe them - "a metal bird, as large as a cart, that flew faster than the eagle and spat death in little metal balls". THAT is a peasant's description of a helicopter, not "I saw a locust".

Once again, I do not know how simple I can make this. Moses called a bat a bird because a bat flies. It has wings. It looks like a bird. The Hebrew term Moses used refers to something that has wings. Scientists LATER classified a bat as a mammal, a term that DID NOT exist when Moses wrote Leviticus. Moses could NOT have used the term "mammal" BECAUSE the word DID NOT exist. In Revelation, John was describing things AS BEST he knew how. He OBVIOUSLY could NOT use a term like NUCLEAR WARFARE because that term HAD NOT been invented yet.I am sorry if you cannot understand this.....To answer the posts about the events in Revelation coming "soon". They have! Revelation is a work in progress, it is NOT prophesied to happen all at once. The Churches have gone through periods of change- just like John said they would, ect....

Sorry, but this soon bit needs a re-think. Jesus even said he would return before some of the disciples tasted death. Where is he? Why do the various parts of the NT use the term soon for the return of Jesus when he has, quite frankly, failed to appear?

It's all very well to say 'its a work in progress' but that is not what was envisioned in the NT. The writers did not expect it to be long - and in human terms a generation (40years) is quite a long time. How long a time is 2,000 years? That god acts in a different time-scale doesn't really help either. The biblical text was for humans to read so talks of things in human terms so that 'soon' means what it says it means.

In any event, whatever you think is foretold in John's Apocalypse is so vague that it could be anywhere and anytime. It's like astrology - put in enough stuff and it applies to everyone.

Besides that, have you thought of the text as a description of what was going on during the Neroan persecution? the fact the '666' is a numerical version of 'Emperor Nero' ought to tell you something. Look up the meaning of the names used in the text - they are really significant. Michael, for instance says in the text 'who is like god' and that is exactly what his name means. Try thinking of the text in that light - as a description and encouragement to the Christians under persecution but written in a coded way so that the Romans would not understand the meaning. Consider if it really is a prediction or a description of the time.

Crucially, could you say why you think it is a prediction for the future - just what makes you think that in the text?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Very good post, and yes- Revelation is mostly symbolic. It was a vision John had, and could not accurately describe what he was seeing. For example, in John 9:3 he mentions locusts and scorpions. Could John be talking about an assault helicopter?

No, he could not. He probably meant " locusts and scorpions"

Quote

After all, John would not know what an assault helicopter was, so he just described things he was familiar with in the way he knew how.

So, you're suggesting that God sent John a vision that God knew John would not understand? What would be the point of this?. Why didn't John then draw a helicopter? Galileo drew helicopters.

Why does the Book of Revelations have to have a meaning? Isn't it far more likely that it is the ramblings of a mad man? Why are we trying to understand a schizophrenic? Are there any other schizophrenics that you believe are "revealing" things?

Why must the Book of Revelations apply to the early part of the 21st century? Don't you realise that each period throughout history could serve for what John ranted on about?

Do you remember when your deity said, "1Th:5:2: For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.2Pe:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."?

Your deity didn't say that he would be giving clues. He didn't say, "Well, not actually like a thief in the night, because I will be sending some nutter to give you an incomprehensible message that, nevertheless will contain a few hints!"

Look, holy buckets, the world has been filled with Chicken Littles worried about the sky falling on their head. You would have thought that, by now, we would have become used to failed prophecies.

But more to the point, you are expecting me to believe that 7-headed dragons will suddenly appear, magicked out of nothing, fully formed and out of nowhere? Now, how likely is that?

Here is Graybeard's prophecy, "Don't worry, the world is not going to end."

Speaking of the rantings of a mad man, I can make little sense of your post. Here is one example, you write: "Why must the Book of Revelations apply to the early part of the 21st century? Don't you realise that each period throughout history could serve for what John ranted on about?"

I don't believe the final battle has happened in"each period throughout history."

I don't know whether you are being purposefully obtuse or genuinely don't understand... If, shortly before the Napoleonic Wars, you had applied Revelations to the situation, you would have seen parallels, and could, as many idiots did, claim that "The End of The World is Nigh!". As we have survived that, and the world did not end, why do you think that NOW is the time that the world will end and Armageddon will be upon us?

You must be aware of the number of idiots who, throughout history have told us that "The End of The World is Nigh!", and yet people keep doing it! (like you are) Did you learn nothing from [wiki]Harold Camping[/wiki]?

Quote

I don't know who chicken little is

Chicken Little is a children's storybook character who causes panic by running round saying that the sky will fall on his head[1]

Quote

and I don't expect a 7 headed dragon to come knocking at my door any time soon.

But you do expect Armageddon? Judgement Day? Christ on a white horses with a Sword in his mouth? You think Jesus lied when he siad the bit about "A thief in the night".

Quote

If you have any intelligent questions, I will be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

If you have any intelligent points to make, you may expect the very best of answers, as it is, those who say that "The End of Days is upon us" invariably turn out to be mentally disturbed and wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent. Versions of the story go back more than 25 centuries and it continues to be referenced in a variety of media. The story is listed as Aarne-Thompson-Uther type 20C, which includes international examples of folktales that make light of paranoia and mass hysteria.[1] There are several Western versions of the story, of which the best-known concerns a chick that believes the sky is falling when an acorn falls on its head.

« Last Edit: April 18, 2013, 05:01:48 AM by Graybeard »

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Moses called a bat a bird because a bat flies. It has wings. It looks like a bird. The Hebrew term Moses used refers to something that has wings. Scientists LATER classified a bat as a mammal, a term that DID NOT exist when Moses wrote Leviticus. Moses could NOT have used the term "mammal" BECAUSE the word DID NOT exist.

That's lovely information, thank you. As I already stated, I understand why Moses got it wrong, but still don't see how your answer explains why God didn't proofread the text before sending it out for duplication and distribution? Remember? This is the book that supposedly contains all the information that, if correctly applied, guarantees one's admittance into heaven. Given how important that is, why would God allow errors of such an easily disproven nature?

Quote

In Revelation, John was describing things AS BEST he knew how. He OBVIOUSLY could NOT use a term like NUCLEAR WARFARE because that term HAD NOT been invented yet.I am sorry if you cannot understand this.....

The failure in understanding the issue you speak of does not lie with us.

Quote

To answer the posts about the events in Revelation coming "soon". They have! Revelation is a work in progress, it is NOT prophesied to happen all at once. The Churches have gone through periods of change- just like John said they would, ect....

Says every believer, ever, throughout all of time. For such a monumental event, the indicators should be blatantly obvious to everyone and singular in nature.

Oh wait. That would be reasonable and coherent. I forgot for a minute that we're talking about religion, which is nether.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Thanks you for all your wonderful questions. Once again, Moses, John, and a host of others simply wrote down what they say (or had a scribe write it- whatever the case may be). You may like it, or not. You may agree or disagree with it. But much of the Bible is people telling us what they saw. If you can't understand that, I don't know what else to say.

Once again, I do not know how simple I can make this. Moses called a bat a bird because a bat flies. It has wings. It looks like a bird. The Hebrew term Moses used refers to something that has wings. Scientists LATER classified a bat as a mammal, a term that DID NOT exist when Moses wrote Leviticus. Moses could NOT have used the term "mammal" BECAUSE the word DID NOT exist.